But a W/L BSR of 1.0 to 100, 1.1 to 200, 1.2 to 200 isn't at the 85th percentile. It's instead targetted to the lowest common demoninator. And so I suggested proposing Brian's chart as best practice, but setting the never exceed .2 higher.

>But a W/L BSR of 1.0 to 100, 1.1 to 200, 1.2 to 200 isn't at the 85th >percentile.

It was 3 years ago. It won't even be close in 10 (if nothing is done, that is.) The problem is that average loadings at a given experience are going up rapidly, and education is not. If you had some sort of restriction that you made flexible enough to 'keep up with the times' it wouldn't do much good - because large numbers of people doing a stupid thing does not make the action any less stupid.

When I started skydiving, a Monarch 190 was a deadly dangerous canopy that only the DZO was allowed to jump. Made sense at the time; no one knew how to land HP canopies other than by trial and error. Yet today a Sabre 190 is a common canopy for someone right off student status. What changed? Canopies didn't change. The air didn't change. Without coaching (and most people still don't get coaching) their skills didn't change.

The answer is that nothing has changed. That ZP 190 is just as dangerous as ever; it's just that people are more used to them and not afraid of them. Thus we're seeing more and more deaths under them. The fear that that Monarch 190 could kill you turned out to be justified.

So I would rather determine loadings based on what someone with zero training can land (i.e. someone who learns purely by trial and error) rather than try to figure out what the 85th percentile is or anything. Just because most low timers are jumping highly loaded canopies does not make low timers jumping highly loaded canopies any safer or more sensible.

The Brian Germain limits are pretty reasonable. I don't know if I'd go with a wing loading of 1.2 for someone with 20 jumps as a 'safe' loading - that's a Sabre2 150 for someone who weighs 160 right off student status. But perhaps if it was broken down further, say 1.0 to A license, then 1.2 to B license, that would work.

As another DZO, such a list would be bad in my opinion. If someone was on the list, I let them jump at my DZ, and someting happened.......I can see the lawsuits now. So I would just not let anyone on the list jump.

That'd stack the deck pretty harshly against anyone who should get listed. They'd have their work cut out for them to convince you they're safe, in order for you to even consider letting them jump again. Is that not desirable? Then you could charge em double As a DZO, you'd get to decide, and if you saw fit you could refuse to permit them at all. I think that's perhaps a suitable sanction.

Quote:

Now let's look at someone who get's in here and argues (with good intentions or not) with these more experienced people and one of them isn't as professional as they should be and decides to put them on the list...... Now, they aren't jumping because they pissed someone off away from the DZ.

Hence the arbitration process. There has to be some fee up front on the complainant, to keep bogus complaints down and to renumerate the arbitrator. But given the current price ranges already involved in the sport I don't think it would be unreasonable. edit for elaboration: If the DZO had acted in a grossly inappropriate fashion, he should be sanctioned. For starters, the arbitration body should award the aggrieved party the compensation of the arbitration fee (ie, from the DZO's wallet), & if further sanction were required it would be determined by the arbitrator, fines, censure, revocation of privileges, or whatever they deem sufficient & appropriate. This type of scenario is common in other industries. The best analogue I can think of (actually, the inspiration) is the NASD's arbitration system.

I am replying to Bill, the original poster, but this is not specifically addressed to him.

Would some proponent of a wingloading BSR like to address the more practical considerations of (trying to) enforce such a rule?

For example, isn't it nice when a police officer with a radar gun is allowed the judgement of when to actually issue a ticket? They don't give out tickets for going 2 MPH over the speed limit do they? Wouldn't be a good idea even if the radar was recently calibrated, eh?

Well, exactly when _would_ you consider not letting a skydiver jump? When they are 3 pounds over the weight limit for their canopy size (according to this BSR)? How about 5 pounds?

How about this skydiver who is 3 pounds over just takes off his jumpsuit, helmet, and shoes to fall within the allowed weight limits? That would be smart of use wouldn't it? Making a rule that could create a situation like this?

So you might be thinking now that I am being ridiculous and that this example is rather far-fetched? So that wouldn't happen you say? People would use their judgement enforcing this BSR?

PS.

Oh, and whose scale?

"No I'm not, I just checked my weight this morning on my Jazzmo 6 electronic scale, your piece of shit scale here at the drop zone is off by 5 pounds!"

Well it's simple of course? The DZO can interpret this rule, like they can interpret the maximum weight for students, the minimum pull altitude, etc. No they can't! A rule is a rule.

So someone gains 10 pounds over the winter and can no longer jump their own gear because they are now over the wingloading for their experience?

>Would some proponent of a wingloading BSR like to address the >more practical considerations of (trying to) enforce such a rule?

Sure. Basically it's no different than any other BSR.

The BSR we're talking about would be the least-strict of the BSR's; it would be designated (S) for waiverable by an S+TA or I/E. Since your question seems to be about the difficulty of enforcing a hard-and-fast rule, let's look at how more strict BSR's are enforced:

The most strict of our BSR's are [NW] or not waiverable at all. As an example, let's take BSR B1, the requirement to comply with all FAA regulations. That means, among other things, that you must be at least one mile from any cloud when you exit an aircraft at 12,500 feet.

How is this enforced in reality? Do S+TA's use laser distance measuring equipment to verify that the aircraft is at least 1 mile from every nearby cloud on jump run? Does he review videos and estimate the distance, and then ground anyone who seems to be only 3/4 of a mile from a cloud? Are DZ's shut down when any little puffy cloud appears?

No. It's generally only enforced when it's a problem. If a bunch of freeflyers come near the edge of a cloud it's not a problem (even though it's a violation of the BSR.) If a tandem punches the edge of a cloud that might be a problem. If a certain spotter always spots for clouds because he thinks it's cool, then it's a problem. And when the S+TA comes to deal with the guy, the BSR he's going to use is B1. It helps him in his job to keep people at his DZ safe.

Let's take a somewhat less strict BSR, G4. It states that C and D license holders must be open by 2000 feet, and is [E] waiverable - which means it can be ignored, but the executive committee must vote and agree to ignore it on a case-by-case basis.

Again, how is this enforced in reality? Do S+TA's stand outside with theodolites and figure out where people pull? If someone seems to pull at 1900 feet, does the S+TA come over, demand the protrack of everyone on the load, and ground anyone whose protrack reads an opening lower than 2000? If a breakoff on a record attempt happens 300 feet low, and the outer ring pulls around 1800 feet as a result, are the ratings of everyone on the dive pulled?

Of course not. If someone pulls at 1900 feet on occasion, it's not a problem pretty much everywhere. If someone pulls at 1500 feet on occasion, he might get talked to. If someone makes it a habit of opening at 1200 feet, then he is going to get talked to, and the S+TA is going to cite BSR G4 as his reason.

To answer your specific question:

>Well, exactly when _would_ you consider not letting a skydiver jump?

When he clearly cannot control his heavily loaded canopy. When he comes screaming into the landing area yelling "Look out! Look out!" When he takes out other people who are just standing around. When he bounces himself off the grass a few times but says "I'm fine, not my fault, I got cut off." That's when the BSR will come in handy. "Sorry, you're way exceeding the limits of this BSR, and you can't jump that canopy here until you take the course."

>People would use their judgement enforcing this BSR?

Just as they do now when they enforce every other BSR.

>Oh, and whose scale?

The same scale they use to deny tandem students their jump when they're overweight.

>Well it's simple of course? The DZO can interpret this rule, like they >can interpret the maximum weight for students, the minimum pull >altitude, etc. No they can't! A rule is a rule.

A rule IS a rule. And just like the pull altitude, it will be enforced when it's a safety issue, not when someone is 50 feet below their pull altitude (or 3 pounds over the weight limit, or 100 feet too close to a cloud.)

>So someone gains 10 pounds over the winter and can no longer jump > their own gear because they are now over the wingloading for their > experience?

If they can still land their canopy, no one will care. (Do you verify that everyone at your DZ is below the 254 lb limit for their gear under TSO C23c?) If they can't land their canopies, then it will become an issue - and they won't be allowed to jump a canopy they can't land.

None of this is new. We regularly exceed TSOed (i.e. FAA mandated) limitations for our gear, minimum pull altitudes, cloud clearance requirements and oxygen requirements. That doesn't mean the BSR's are worthless. Rather, it means that we have a guide to what to do, and a means to stop egregious violations. We don't bust people for pulling at 1900 feet, or pilots for going to 15,500 MSL without O2 for everyone on board, or a jumper for getting out half a mile from a cloud, or a 240 lb guy for jumping a C23c reserve - unless they are causing serious problems by doing so. This BSR would be no different.

If you consider that the chart has more strict requirements for canpoies smaller than 150 sq ft, the variations in WL created by a change in weight of under 10 lbs, would be minnimal. Seeing as these numbers are the MAX wl, if a jumper was right on the line, and then gained 10 lbs, that represents an increase of less than .1 lbs, per square ft. Even if this were a common occurence, it would still be a better situation than the current one, where essentially, anything goes.

Otherwise, enforcement would be simple. Have the DZO post the guidelines, along with note stating, 'I expect everyone to abide by these guidelines. If you are found to be outside of these guidelines, you will be asked to leave, and not return until your equipment is within spec'.

Sooner or later it will become common knowledge, much like pull altitudes. No DZO can watch every jumper on every jump, but when a guy hums it down, if the DZO sees, he'll get a talking to, and the jumper will pormise to never do it again. If it happens repeatedly, there will probably some sanction on the part of the DZO.

The advatage to the WL requirement is that the DZO only has to see it happen once, and can ground the jumper (or their gear) unitl they switch canopies.

Our (the Dutch) BSR - annex: 'rules for parachute-choice' START with: "in par 501 of the BSR it says that any jumper that wants to jump with another parachute and changes the 'experience-category' must meet certain demands. Demands are as follows..."

Well, they could have worded that better (in Dutch it is as horrible as in English, language-wise) but what is ment is 'grandfathering the situation as is' and 'demands only come in play, when you are downsizing'. Someone gaining a few pounds but jumping the canopy he made 50 jumps with last year - or replacing it with something from the same category - wouldn't be bothered.

Then again, they didn't make it waiverable at the discretion of DZO / S & TA ...

Since this (primarily) seems to be a discussion about the situation in the USA...

If you consider that the chart has more strict requirements for canpoies smaller than 150 sq ft, the variations in WL created by a change in weight of under 10 lbs, would be minnimal. Seeing as these numbers are the MAX wl, if a jumper was right on the line, and then gained 10 lbs, that represents an increase of less than .1 lbs, per square ft. Even if this were a common occurence, it would still be a better situation than the current one, where essentially, anything goes.

Otherwise, enforcement would be simple. Have the DZO post the guidelines, along with note stating, 'I expect everyone to abide by these guidelines. If you are found to be outside of these guidelines, you will be asked to leave, and not return until your equipment is within spec'.

Sooner or later it will become common knowledge, much like pull altitudes. No DZO can watch every jumper on every jump, but when a guy hums it down, if the DZO sees, he'll get a talking to, and the jumper will pormise to never do it again. If it happens repeatedly, there will probably some sanction on the part of the DZO.

The advatage to the WL requirement is that the DZO only has to see it happen once, and can ground the jumper (or their gear) unitl they switch canopies.

I think this is why a guidline might be more appropriate at this time. Right now as a DZO, I just tell people NO. Your not ready, do these tasks, show me this or that, your judgement keeps getting you into situations that will get you hurt on a smaller canopy, etc.

All of our students either buy, or download a SIM. If there was a chart in there to refer them to, then it is in black and white that wiser, older (hehe, stab at most of the board memebers ) jumpers have determined a safe progression.

I still say education is everything, but this would be another tool. We teach canopy control to our students and quite often go well beyond the ISP. If they start talking to students from other DZ's, they start thinking they are way ahead of the game (in many ways they are), rather than the others being behind.

I think that both should be presented to the S&T Committee. Remeber, a proposal like this doesn't go to a board. It goes to a Committee and the committee makes a proposal/suggestion to the board to vote on. If an individual (or group) goes to the open board, most likely the board says X committee (S&T in this case) discuss this and get back with us. The down side is that generally means that because of the 'agenda' that it won't even be discussed until the next meeting (6 months for USPA).

I believe me, that even though you may not see a lot of board members posting here, some are reading and will take some info to the committees.

I think that both should be presented to the S&T Committee. Remeber, a proposal like this doesn't go to a board. It goes to a Committee and the committee makes a proposal/suggestion to the board to vote on. If an individual (or group) goes to the open board, most likely the board says X committee (S&T in this case) discuss this and get back with us. The down side is that generally means that because of the 'agenda' that it won't even be discussed until the next meeting (6 months for USPA).

I believe me, that even though you may not see a lot of board members posting here, some are reading and will take some info to the committees.

Todd

Right. My point is just that with several variations of a proposal floating around, it is helpful if contributors here identify clearly which particular variant their comments apply to. Otherwise we get to talking at cross purposes which is quite counter-productive.

(One of the advantages of Roberts Rules is that only one proposal can be discussed at a time.)

The concept of a waiver needs to be clarified in this discussion. It's not a waiver if you meet the exemption requirements expressed in the BSR w.r.t. canopy course endorsement or skills signoff by a coach (or whatever the final requirement might be). You've simply qualified, the BSR is not being waived at least by the most sensible interpretation, you've qualified within the parameters of the BSR.

Even if one of the current proposals is less onerous than others there are other options not on the table that would be simpler, for example making anyone downsizing get their log book endorsed by a S&TA to that size based on a logbook review and discussion. This formalizes what prudent jumpers do now w.r.t. experienced review of their choices.

I really object to the argument that some basic safety requirements aren't rigidly enforced so we shouldn't worry about imposing another one because most people will flout it just so a few people can be singled out. It's a thoroughly bankrupt argument. That's the worst kind of rule and making that argument should be sending up red flags about approving this.

tspillers: Right now as a DZO, I just tell people NO. You're not ready, do these tasks, show me this or that, your judgement keeps getting you into situations that will get you hurt on a smaller canopy, etc.

Todd,

It is nice to hear that some DZO's have the guts to do this. My question to everyone else out there is why this won't work at other drop zones.

Safety can really come from only one place- from drop zone management, be it the owner, manager, club president, or whoever is in charge.

S&TA's can advise, (and sometimes they can even "control" if they are given the authority) but drop zone management is where it really comes from.

USPA cannot make skydiving "safe". It can barely make it safer.

Another question for all is why do many people think a wingloading chart from a national skydiving organization is going to be more well received than one from a prominent canopy flight expert like Brian Germain?

If I was a know-it-all young skydiver insisting that I was capable of handling a canopy that others thought would hurt me, I would certainly consider Brian's advice more than rules set up by a bunch of old people in a political organization, many of who have very little experience advanced canopy flight.

It is nice to hear that some DZO's have the guts to do this. My question to everyone else out there is why this won't work at other drop zones.

Various reasons. The DZ may be too large to micro-manage each jumper. The DZO and staff may be too busy to pay attention. The DZO's impression of what or is or isn't safe may be 'off'.

Quote:

why do many people think a wingloading chart from a national skydiving organization is going to be more well received than one from a prominent canopy flight expert

If I was a know-it-all young skydiver insisting that I was capable of handling a canopy that others thought would hurt me, I would certainly consider Brian's advice more than rules set up by a bunch of old people

This is a good point, however, involving the USPA is a tactic to get the DZO's to play along, as well as establish the rules they play by. In turn, the individual jumper will have to follow the rules, regardless of who laid them out, as the DZO will be behind them. You want to jump, you follow the rules.

Also, you can't tell a know-it-all anything even if you are a respected, world class canopy pilot. Your advice may stick with them for a few jumps, but thier minds will find a way to turn it into permission from a world class pilot to do whatever their heart desires.

My question to everyone else out there is why this won't work at other drop zones.

The question should be; "Why isn't this working at other DZ's?"

DZO's at other DZ's could do this, but don't. Why? Because there is no national standard? Because if they say "no", the jumper can take their money to their competetor and still jump? Because most DZO's don't care? Because most DZOs won't put effort into something unless there is $$$ in it for them?

>My question to everyone else out there is why this won't work at other drop zones.

Because some DZ's don't have leaders who jump high performance canopies. Thus they either make rules that are incredibly restrictive (no loadings over the DZO's loading) rules that make no sense (no ellipticals but other canopies are fine) or forgo any sort of rule because they don't understand the issue. And while it is certainly their right to do that, USPA could help these people by providing them with canopy control restriction guidelines. Such guidelines could help keep competent jumpers in the air at DZ's that now have restrictive rules, and help keep 100 jump wonders alive at DZ's that don't understand what's going on.

>Safety can really come from only one place- from drop zone > management, be it the owner, manager, club president, or whoever >is in charge.

Agreed. Often, these people promulgate USPA BSR's because they are a simple and straightforward way to keep people at their DZ safer.

>Another question for all is why do many people think a wingloading chart > from a national skydiving organization is going to be more well received > than one from a prominent canopy flight expert like Brian Germain?

Because every USPA DZ in the country has a SIM and jumpers are required to read it (to pass the tests if nothing else.) Keep in mind that although Brian Germain is well-known to us, to someone with 100 jumps (i.e. the people most at risk) he may be a nobody.

>I would certainly consider Brian's advice more than rules set up by a > bunch of old people in a political organization, many of who have very > little experience advanced canopy flight.

Yet when it comes to things like opening altitudes, they listen to the old farts at USPA rather than experienced BASE jumpers who have oodles of experience opening low. Why? Because we have made the pull altitude BSR easier for DZO's to enforce by putting it in the SIM.